This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Usual Suspects

  • Who wants to do some research? (UPDATED)


    IVAW took their circus on the rode to Texas, and this guy had some….compelling (??) testimony:

    Rooster Romriell
    Branch of service: United States Army (USA)
    Unit: 1-41 ARmored and 1-8 Cav
    Rank: means nothing to free men
    Home: Texas
    Served in: Ft. Riley, Ks, Ft. Hood, TX, Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq, Abu Graib, Iraq.
    I learned to cherish the sanctity of life in the fires of war and came to my studies of Buddhism in Iraq. As an infantryman I saw the worst of the war and took it home on my shoulder. 1-41 was known for it’s murder scandals and I was the man who broke the case open, the one who stood against the evil of our own, regrettably it had to be done. Our nation is now falling to the ashes of Rome, fascist Germany, and the Persian empire. WE are weakened by our wealth and power, and this once great Babylonian fortress is set to collapse. Let’s set it free!

    Anyway, set your BS detectors to stun, and ponder his testimony.

    First beer is on me at the Milblog conference who can verify/demolish this guys tale of woe.

    Anytime a guy claims that he was the sole person standing for truth and justice, I imediately suspect a phony. I’m sure he served there, but his “I was the man who broke the case open, the one who stood against the evil of our own” translates into grunt speak as “listen to the mating call of the endangered Blue Falcon….”

    Have at it kids!

    UPDATE: Well, it would seem that most of this is truth, which I find rather shocking. I did note this one sentence in a WaPo article:

    An Army investigator described Romriell as the black sheep of his squad in part because he opposed the war in Iraq. The private has since been transferred to another unit for his safety.

    Young testified that Williams had said, “The first chance he gets, ‘I’m going to kill Romriell.’ “

    Black sheep or no, that’s pretty messed up.

    So, I’ll give this guy a temporary tip o’ the hat on this one. You do screwed up stuff, you do the time. Still can’t buy into the other 99% of IVAW stories, but this guy looks legit at first read.

    Jonn added: Well, the guy doesn’t get a complete pass. He says his unit is known for “murder scandals” as if the whole unit was complicit a widespread murder spree and cover up. There was ONE SCANDAL. The offender eventually pleaded guilty. Romriel continues in his IVAW profile like he personally brought down the “empire” by sliding a note under his CO’s door. If his commander decided to investigate the crime and prosecute the criminal, that should be sufficient evidence that our military isn’t the out-of-control murder machines Romriel tries to tell us it is.

    On top of all of that, Romriell calls the unit 1/41st Armor. It’s the 1/41st INFANTRY. If he wasn’t such an ate-up, pot smoking hippie, he’d remember that and be proud of it. In fact, he was in C Co. 1/41st – the same company COB6 and I were in together in Desert Storm. Romriell wore a Valorous Unit Citation over his right pocket that we earned for him. He could at least remember the branch he served in.

    And that drama queen answer about rank – that means he was probably a screw up and got out as an E-1 or E-2. He did an honorable and brave thing by turning in the murderer, but then he beclowned himself to make emo friends in the IVAW. Legit? Barely.

  • Dean on Obama’s perfect health care plan

    Christina Bellantoni of the Washington Times interviewed Howard Dean about the President’s health care program. Of course, Howard Dean took the opportunity to belittle and threaten Republican opponents:

    Mr. Dean said “Democrats can’t cave” on Mr. Obama’s plan, which he called “perfect.”

    “Not every Republican is a right-wing ideologue,” Mr. Dean said in an interview Monday.

    “They called Medicare socialized medicine,” he said. “If they want to filibuster this to death, be my guest and let’s see how they do in 2010.”

    Yeah, who do they think they are to call socialized medicine by that name? It’s working Americans paying for health care for Americans who for some reason or another don’t pay for their own health care. What else would it be called?

    And “perfect”? How is anything perfect? That statement alone should make his intentions suspect in the minds of most Americans.

    The Dean makes an even more absurd statement:

    He said Medicare for all would be a good solution since “people like it,” and “it works.”

    “It’s ridiculous to say care would be inferior,” said Mr. Dean, who was a family practice physician in Vermont and later the state’s governor. “It’s perfectly good for the millions and millions of people over 65 in this country.”

    Yeah, he should ask people over 65 in this country how they like Medicare. I did. I asked my mother who is 73 years old and her husband who is eighty what she thinks of it. She says she couldn’t afford the Medicare Part B that the government tried to shove down her throat, so she found a private supplement that is cheaper and more flexible. See, she contributed her whole life to Medicare, and then when it came time to use it, she had to pay more. And in order to afford what the government had told her would be free, she had to turn to private insurance so they could continue to live on the sparse income they get from Social Security.

    I get my health care from the Army – I earned it, but it’s still government health care. Bill Clinton decided to save money on military health care and began charging us for what we’d been told would be free while we were earning the right to it – fulfilling our end of the bargain. Even now, Congress is discussing whether they want to put caps on our health care, raise our co-pays and being more selective about who gets to participate. Active duty service members used to get dental treatment free, until Congress changed their collective mind and forced an inadequate, expensive dental insurance on families.

    Those are the two heath care programs that Congress administrates now – when costs exceed their projections (read that campaign promises) they get to change their minds. And it’s difficult to plan for your future when you’re trying to hit a moving target.

    Dean goes on about “Baby College” which is a program which “encourages” parents to stay involved in their young children’s lives;

    The “Baby College” idea encourages poor families to attend parenting groups to learn basic skills like reading to children, keeping fathers engaged and in some cases offering adult literacy courses.

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure they’ll be “encouraged”. We know how the government “encourages” us to pay taxes. After poor participation, there’ll be an enforcement policy, and an agency to administer enforcement. Then it’ll be perfect.

  • So whose spending bill is it anyway?

    My latest email from my newest BFFs at Organizing for America tells me to gird my loins for battle against…well…someone. I don’t don’t who I’m fighting, but I need to be ready to fight;

    Maybe it’s the oligarchy…no wait that’s Chavez – oh, yeah, the “the special interests and old ways of Washington”. I wonder which special interest I should whup up on first…ACORN or the lawyers.

    But wait. Obama is claiming this budget as his own? That’s what the email says. What did Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget tell CNN yesterday?

    He argued that the White House had little choice but to support the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which it inherited from the previous administration. The bill would keep the government running through 2009.

    “This is like your relief pitcher coming into the ninth inning and wanting to redo the whole game,” Orszag said. “Next year we’re going to be the starting pitcher, and the game’s going to be completely different.”

    Are we supposed to be supporting a Bush spending bill? Really? It’s not Obama’s like they told me in the email? I don’t thin I want to fight anymore until I find who I’m fighting for. Geez, ya know maybe I ought to screen capture that CNN story in case it disappears;

    So in order to come down on both sides of this issue, Obama alternately blames Bush for the spending bill and tells his mindless drones to get ready to fight for Obama’s bill.

  • Safe enough for ya now, TJ?

    We got an IVAW press release today announcing their intention to send two representatives to an Iraqi Labor Conference. It’s um, pretty funny;

    Since the U.S. occupation began, Iraqi workers have been targeted in an attempt to suppress the population and control Iraq’s natural resources. Labor leaders have been killed, tortured and imprisoned; worker’s rights have been routinely violated; and union bank accounts have been frozen. In turn, Iraqi labor unions and workers have been among the leading non-sectarian forces defending Iraqi sovereignty and democracy.

    Notice how they fail to mention who is doing the killing of these labor leaders. The implication, of course, is that either US troops or the Iraqi government is doing it. I’m not going to speculate about who they think is responsible – but it sounds like they lifted the whole line from a presser from the US labor unions about Colombia. You’d think they’d point fingers at who they they think is the culprit.

    IVAW members Aaron Hughes and TJ Buonomo will represent IVAW as the only non-labor union participants at this historic conference. We have accepted this special invitation as an opportunity to powerfully show our support for the Iraqi people’s struggle for a democratic and sovereign Iraq, free of foreign domination. IVAW believes this can only be accomplished by ending the occupation and removing all foreign troops and bases, said Aaron Hughes, Iraq veteran and former Sergeant with the Illinois National Guard.

    Oh, good, two clowns who’ve never held a job are going to a labor conference. Here’s Thomas J Buonomo’s profile at IVAW;

    Buonomo’s story goes like this: He went to the Air Force Academy, got commissioned in the Army, went to intel school in Arizona and then got cold feet about being being deployed away from the lifestyle he’d grown accustomed to in the Air Force Academy.

    In his profile he explains;

    After examining statements made by numerous journalists and public officials with firsthand information on these matters, I came to the conclusion that the Iraq war was not only irresponsible but illegal and immoral….

    Brilliant, huh? He read “numerous journalists” whom we all know are infallible experts on every subject in the world. And this snot-nosed green El-Tee swallowed their BS and used it as an excuse to avoid the service that he OWED the country because of the free education he received.

    But I guess it’s safe enough now for TJ to venture over to Iraq – last time they sent Hughes and Millard. I guess Buonomo figures that they made it back in one piece he can stick his cowardly nose in where it doesn’t belong.

    The trip is being funded by USLAW (US Labor Against the War) an affiliate of United For Peace and Justice.

  • Dems: Earmarks are good now, trust us

    With their willing accomplices in the press running interference for them, the Democrats are trying their hand at changing the public’s perception of earmarks. Last year, campaigning Senator Obama said earmarks are bad (CNN link);

    “We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project,” Obama’s statement said.

    “The entire earmark process needs to be re-examined and reformed. For that reason, I will be supporting Sen. DeMint’s amendment and will not be requesting earmarks this year for Illinois,” the statement added.

    But the Democrats in the Senate this year, are doing their best to convince voters that earmarks are good. Senator Dick Durbin (The Washington Times link);

    “That there is something inherently evil, wicked or criminal or wrong with [earmarks], it’s just not the case,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, noting that he earmarked millions of dollars in the pending omnibus spending bill for what he said were worthy projects in his home state.

    Mr. Durbin said lawmakers’ pet projects are listed in the bill and exposed to public scrutiny, and that members of Congress know how to best spend taxpayer dollars in their districts and states.

    “Otherwise, what happens? We give the money to the agency downtown and they decide where to spend it,” Mr. Durbin said on the Senate floor. “It isn’t as if the money won’t be spent. Oh, it will be spent. But it may not be spent as effectively or for projects that are as valuable.”

    See? You legislators know best how to spend your tax money (or, more accurately, the money from some other taxpayer across the country from you). Even government bureaucrats don’t know how to spend your money like a Senator knows how to spend your money. That’s why he’s your Senator.

    But Durbin isn’t the only Senator who thinks earmarks are necessary – Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid think so, too;

    The refrain has been the same from other top Democrats, whether from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada or House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland. Besides touting the merits of earmarks, these Democrats balked at Mr. Obama’s announcement last week of a plan to reel in pork-barrel spending.

    Both Mr. Reid and Mr. Hoyer made clear that they thought it was out of Mr. Obama’s constitutional jurisdiction.

    What does Nancy Pelosi think of earmarks?

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, last week defended earmarks as an “appropriate function” of Congress, even as she pledged to work with the White House to cut the number and increase transparency – but only after passage of the omnibus bill.

    “The idea is lower number, more transparency, total accountability,” Mrs. Pelosi said.

    We’ll lower the number of earmarks – well, after this year. In other words, they’re hoping (and planning on) the media forgets that they said that next year. The Obama Administration is taking the same position – wait’ll next year (CNN link);

    [Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget] argued that the White House had little choice but to support the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which it inherited from the previous administration. The bill would keep the government running through 2009.

    “This is like your relief pitcher coming into the ninth inning and wanting to redo the whole game,” Orszag said. “Next year we’re going to be the starting pitcher, and the game’s going to be completely different.”

    Obama argues that he was saddled with this spending bill because the Bush Administration didn’t get a spending bill through Congress last year – that’s because Democrats wouldn’t take it up and put it off until this year. Sounds like he needs to sit down and talk with the children in his party. Unless, of course, he enjoys breaking a new campaign promise every week.

  • Kokesh: “They” better watch out

    Mr. “Xanax and Gin” Kokesh got to shoot a pistol this week so he warns some nebulous “They” to watch out. It’s obvious that the Wilson Hill Pistol Club doesn’t have drug tests before letting people shoot on their range.

    The fact that the local Nashua, New Hampshire Telegraph newspaper pegged Kokesh as a Libertarian is exactly the reason the Libertarians are so low on my list.

  • Why States don’t fight wars

    Jerry920 sent us this article from the Army Times which reports on the efforts of one State Senator of mine in the sorry state of Maryland.

    Sorry? Yes, because they have a long history of being two-faced and populated by morons. They were one of the slave states that remained in the Union during the Civil War having their cake and eating it, too, since the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t apply to them. It was Marylanders that Pinkerton had to protect the new President Lincoln from as he made his way to his first Inauguration. It was Marylanders that hid John Wilkes Boothe until he could cross the Potomac into Virginia. In fact, John Wilkes Booth was a Marylander. Well, you see where I get this intense dislike of my neighbors.

    Back to the article;

    A Maryland state senator is pushing a bill that would require the governor to prevent the mobilization of the state’s National Guard for federal duty unless Congress has authorized the use of military force or issued a declaration of war.

    The bill also would authorize the governor to ask for the return of deployed units in certain circumstances.

    While the sons and daughters of 49 other States fight and die for the security of the chuckleheads of Maryland.

    Madaleno, a Democrat [as if you hadn’t guessed at this point], said he supported the Iraq invasion, although he said he believes there were “serious gaps in how the war was prosecuted after…the first six months.”

    At the same time, he argued, “If we are actually going to be actively engaged in conflicts around the world for a variety of reasons, how do we create a political process that makes sure that the people remain engaged and supportive of the conflicts that we’re in? It shouldn’t just be the executive branch that is solely responsible for that decision-making. We have to create a political process that keeps the public engaged, informed, through their elected representatives.”

    Never mind whether we win or lose, or if we’re secure in our homes – it’s more important that the public remain engaged. It’s all about feelings.

    It’s all a part of the “Bring The Guard Home” Movement which I’ve written about before here. They’re perfectly willing to let other soldiers fight their wars while they feel good about their neighbors sitting out a war at home. There’s probably a movement in your state, too. And Oh, they have the backing of Code Pink, too.

    “By doing it this way, I’m trying to take a slightly different tack than several other states, where they’ve focused solely on the resolution to bring the Guard home from Iraq now,” Madaleno said. “And I’m trying to refocus and broaden the debate a little bit: What are the lessons of this conflict that inform us for the next conflict?”

    This is why States and the US Congress don’t fight wars – they don’t understand that you can’t hamstring your military and the application of military power where and when it’s needed by setting up a series of useless and unnecessary legislative hoops to jump through.

    Jerry asked me about Minnesota – according to National Review;

    The United States Supreme Court settled this question definitively in 1990, when the then-governor of Minnesota complained that Guard troops from that state had been sent to Central America. In that case — Perpich v. Department of Defense — the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the governor of Minnesota had no such authority over the Guard troops, and recognized “the supremacy of federal power in the area of military affairs.”

    Wikipedia concurs. The actual decision says;

    Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.

    So they have no legs to stand on. But, it’s just the idea….

  • IAVA’s leadership is not nonpartisan [Jonn]

    You may have noticed that we’ve had a hard-on for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association in the past few weeks. I guess I started it this time when I emailed the Executive Director, Paul Reickhoff and asked him where I could find a written copy of his criticism of the Obama Administration’s and Congress’s plan to begin cutting health care benefits for veterans.

    Of course, I was being facetious because I knew that no such published criticism existed. See, Reickhoff wrote criticism of the Bush administration bi-weekly for the Huffington Post during those years, I was asking for proof that Reickhoff was nonpartisan as he claimed. That endeavor was in vain, however.

    In his usual characteristic condescending and smarmy tone, Reickhoff wrote back that I should check the IAVA FAQ page for their position on veteran health care and that future communications should be sent to his civilian media relations chick.

    Since our email exchange, Reickhoff did an interview with the Virginian Pilot in which he claims that IAVA’s current position on the Post-9-11 GI Bill for veterans is that they support spending caps. What kind of veteran organization would support spending caps? Well, since that’s the way that the Obama Administration is going with their policy towards veterans, I can only guess that a partisan veteran organization would support caps on veteran benefits. Especially since IAVA put such a high value on the new GI Bill that their Senate scorecard relied heavily on how Senators supported that GI Bill. Suddenly, gob smacked by reality, they support spending caps on it.

    The story has disappeared from the V-P, but it remains on Military.com for the time being.

    By the way, the article says that the American Legion also supports spending caps, but that’s not true. No other veteran organization supports spending caps on ANY veterans benefit except IAVA.

    Here’s a screen capture of the part that refers to Reickhoff’s interview in case Military.com disappears that one, too;
    (more…)